[ExI] The Political Origins of Life

[The Avantguardian]

 ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>
> To: The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>; ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2012 8:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [ExI] The Political Origins of Life

> What you may not be aware of is how they often (nearly always) quote
> scientists out of context. For example, here is a quote of Richard
> Dawkins:
> "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction."
> from the preface of The Selfish Gene.
> Do you think Richard Dawkins thought he was writing science fiction,
> really? He was making a point. But the creationist who quoted it made
> it seem like Dawkins KNEW evolution was a farce.

Well that's on Dawkins. He himself wrote the preface. A preface is something of an explanation or apology on behalf of the author for having written something. Dawkins made the mistake of apologizing in advance for writing the truth. As if the searing light of the truth itself could not burn away falsehood of its own merits. Perhaps he is just too much of an English gentleman to crush his opposition. I, on the otherhand, being a crude American, have no such qualms.

> 
>> What is false is not that their assertion that life is complex, but that a 
> *diety* is
>> required for such complexity to exist.
> 
> But it is not so complex that it COULDN'T have evolved right here. Or
> are you of the opinion that panbiogenesis is the only answer?

In the sense that a scientist these days has to "spin-doctor" the importance of his or her own research, yes, I am firmly in my own camp so to speak. Am I so certain that my theory will withstand the test of time and empirical testing? Well as Eugen pointed out, no Bayesian, or any kind of statistician really, can make any judgement about one occurance of anything. One of something does not qualify as a sample unless you have something to compare it to.  

> Yeah, it's pretty sad.
> 
>> Contemplate that for a minute: There are people who believe that the 1.2 MB 
> of text
>> contained in the Bible completely describes the creator of the universe 
> when that
>> same believer's genetic code would take about 2.9 GB (gigabytes not 
> gigabases)
>> for both sets of chromosomes to be written in a book. The believer is 
> almost 2500
>> times more complex than all known data regarding the God he worships.
> 
> Not to defend the religious, but much of our beliefs (physics)  can be
> written in a dozen equations. That is certainly more condensed than
> the Bible. So brevity is not equal to falsity. Complexity isn't
> everything. Having simple rules that can give rise to complexity is
> where emergence comes from, and perhaps that is everything.

Ah, the equations are simple but the inputs and outputs to those equations are often doubly complex (i.e. both "complicated" and involving the square-root of negative one). For example very few analytic solutions to the general relativity field equations exist and the rest are so complex they must be simulated on a computer. The same is true of numerous equations in physics such as the Lane-Emden equation and the Navier-Stokes equation.

The Navier-Stokes equation is particularly interesting because for years now a foundation has been offering a million dollar prize for a mathematical explanation of how it works. It is very important because it is the equation that describes the weather, amongst many other phenomenon. It can only be solved analytically for very special cases. The rest of the time it must be simulated on a computer.

So what I am saying is that your "brief equations" can literally give rise to chaos!  Mwahahaha! Ahem... Sorry.

>> But then... there are the untold masses that profess to *believe* but 
> haven't even
>> completely read the book they profess to believe in.
> 
> Have you read Origin of Species all the way through? Just curious. I
> have. I've also read the Bible all the way through, and the Book of
> Mormon, and a bunch of other books. Haven't made it through the Koran
> yet... :-)

It amongst other works were part of the assigned reading for a history of science class I took at university. So yes I have read it completely but I doubt I have contemplated it in Darwin's voice to the degree that Spike has for example because I learned most of the same material in condensed form in textbooks.

> 
>>>> See how the individual dead molecules look like they themselves are
>>>> alive? Dancing in perfect yet unchoreographed harmony? That's
>>>> some *serious* negentropy. That's the challenge faced by 
> scientists.
>>>> It's like putting a bunch of Legos into a cement mixer and 
> expecting
>>>> the Taj Mahal to come out.
>>> 
>>> Now you ARE sounding like a creationist. Emergence will eventually
>>> show how all this could have happened. It may or may not have happened
>>> here first, but even if it happened somewhere else first, it had to
>>> happen first somewhere, right? So we should try and figure that out.
>> 
>> A creationist? Really?
> 
> Yes. This is exactly the argument that they use. Nearly word for word.

Really? Do they realize that the Bible, word-for-word, would come out of that cement mixer billions of times more often than even the lowliest worm?

Mark my words. Creationists who wield complexity arguments do so like straw-men wielding fire. They do so only at arms length and will turn tail and run at the first sign that you might turn that fire back on them.   

 
> It is a bit far fetched... but it's easy to get caught up in that kind
> of belief system. It is very hard to escape as well. I know this from
> personal first hand experience. I was a practicing Mormon until about
> 4 years ago.

People can be caught up in any belief system whatsoever. Just ask Keith. And it is far harder to escape from a belief system you are born into then than one you get caught up in. Not without alienating yourself from the people you love.
 
> But to leave the door open to some other diety, I'm not willing to
> sell my soul again. Not at this point.

Well then maybe you should shut the door and lock it. Jesus himself said his second coming would be as "a thief in the night". So if he is real, he will find a way in.

> And yet, the flow of memes through me, and to you, will still have an
> effect on the world. It may not be a great effect, but if there are
> enough people with good memes, the cumulative effect will be profound.
> 
> I am sending a boy to school in Africa. I'm going to change his family
> tree forever. His great-grandchildren will likely owe there existence
> to me, though they may not know my name or even his. Such is the
> nature of life.

Then you are living a more enlightened life than most.

> And yet, my belief system is that everyone will remember everyone from
> this age. Some of our digital footprints may last as long as the pair
> at Laetoli.

That is a beautiful thought. 

>> The truth is always stranger than fiction and the bible is not even good
>> fiction. I will be true to my nature in this life and truth is part of my 
> nature.
> 
> To be infidels to scientific truth only requires a lack of care in how
> we use our words. They will be hijacked and used as tools for the
> other side if we do not exercise this care.

Oh I have chosen my words carefully. It is the creationists that should have chosen their words more carefully.
 
> I don't see understanding the true origin of life as having no
> economic value. If, as I think it would, it decreased the devotion of
> time and energy towards religion... it would free that time up for
> other, possibly more productive, applications of people's time.

I never thought of that. Henceforth I give all of you free-license to use my ideas to try to cleanse the minds of the infected.

Stuart LaForge
 
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - Hunter S. Thompson